Posts Tagged ‘law’

Malta’s police must investigate all corruption allegations, particularly at the highest political level, to end the perceived impunity in the country, MEPs say.Members of the Civil Liberties Committee and the former Committee of Inquiry into Money Laundering, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance (PANA) on Thursday discussed the conclusions of a fact-finding mission to Valletta last month to assess the situation of the rule of law and several allegations of corruption and money laundering.Maltese Minister of Justice Dr Owen Bonnici attended the meeting, as did two of the sons of the journalist and blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was killed in a bomb attack in October 2017.Most of the MEPs criticised the lack of police action, despite the very serious evidence of maladministration involving even members of the Maltese government, and considered the situation in Malta a source of concern for the whole of the EU. Many pointed to the lack of transparency of the Citizenship by Investment programme. Some speakers also asked for more time to get a full and clear picture of what is going on in the country.Mr Bonnici regretted that MEPs are not taking account of the significant reforms adopted by the Maltese government to address corruption and assured them that all serious allegations are being investigated. “It is completely false that this government has put the rule of law in the dustbin”, he stated.

The EU-US data protection framework, known as the “Umbrella Agreement” was backed by a large majority in the Civil Liberties Committee on Thursday morning. The deal will ensure high, binding data protection standards for data exchanged by police and law enforcement authorities across the Atlantic. The Umbrella Agreement covers the transfer of all personal data, such as names, addresses or criminal records, exchanged between the EU and US for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, including terrorism.“This is a big step forward for transatlantic data protection”, said lead MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht (Greens, DE) after the committee approved his recommendation of the agreement by 41 votes to 4, with 6 abstentions. “In future there will be high, binding standards and strong individual rights will apply when it comes to the exchange of data between police and law enforcement authorities”.
“The agreement represents the start of a new way to negotiate high transatlantic standards on fundamental rights instead of the incomplete, fragmented and very low ones seen so far. It was crucial for Parliament’s approval to have a binding clarification that the Umbrella Agreement is not a legal basis for new data transfers, and that data protection authorities can always check compliance”, he added.The agreement ensures that citizens on both sides of the Atlantic will have the right to:
• be informed in the event of data security breaches,
• have inaccurate information corrected and
• seek judicial redress at court.
It also sets limits on onward transfers of data and retention periods.

Despite criticism from abroad, China has passed its controversial Cybersecurity Law. The new law will come into effect in June 2017 and gives the government broad powers to protect and control so-called critical information infrastructure. However, the law is vague and lacks detail on specific security measures. Foreign companies are concerned that they may have to share their source code with Chinese authorities. They also worry that data localisation requirements might increase the danger of industrial espionage and intellectual property violations.MERICS cybersecurity expert Nabil Alsabah explains what is at stake.
What is the Cybersecurity Law all about?
The Cybersecurity Law is the latest addition to a series of laws and regulations aimed at strengthening network security and tightening information control and censorship in China. The law introduces measures to ensure the protection of “critical information infrastructure” – such as energy and water supply – from hackers and cyber sabotage. It also confirms previous censorship rules in the name of “protecting political stability” and “national security”. The law gives the government the right to shut down the internet during crises, as it once did during the unrest in Xinjiang in 2009.In 2015 China passed a Counter-Terrorism Law which requires companies to provide access to the data of terror suspects. The National Security Law, also adopted last year, laid down the principle of “cyber sovereignty” — the notion that China can regulate “its” internet as it wishes. The Cybersecurity Law is part of this broader framework.
How does the cybersecurity law affect foreign companies doing business in China?
The law affects foreign companies that sell hardware and software solutions to China’s critical infrastructure operators. Those operators are in the future only allowed to purchase IT products that have passed a cybersecurity review, probably administered by the Cyberspace Administration of China. It is unclear whether foreign companies must reveal software source code during the review process.The new law classifies the following areas as critical: communication infrastructure, energy, transport, water supply, finance, public utilities and e-government services. The law also mentions unspecified areas that might affect “national security”, the “citizens’ well-being” or “public interest”. Such vague language could allow authorities to arbitrarily classify more and more areas as “critical”.The data localisation requirement is another challenge for foreign companies. The law stipulates that data, such as user data, collected by critical infrastructure operators must be stored within China’s borders. Foreign businesses are concerned that this requirement increases the risk of industrial espionage and intellectual property theft.
Foreign companies have criticized the draft law for months. Have their concerns been addressed?
The legislator did not compromise on the data localisation requirement or the cybersecurity review for IT products sold to critical infrastructure operators. These two issues were the biggest concerns for foreign companies. However, under certain circumstances companies may be exempted from the data localisation requirement. However, details are not clear.Showing strength can pay off too. Apple, for example, has successfully refused to share source code with the Chinese state – without any repercussions.Overall, the new law lacks transparency and creates uncertainty. Its precise effects remain to be seen and depend on implementation.

To end the current “crisis-driven” approach to perceived breaches of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in EU member states, the EU Commission should set up a binding EU mechanism to monitor and report annually on their records in these fields, say MEPs in a resolution passed on Tuesday. This mechanism should include objective benchmarks and lay down a gradual approach to remedying breaches, they add.“We have provided the European Union with the instruments to enforce all the other policy areas – competition policies, police and justice cooperation, foreign policies (…), but our core values are not protected by instruments that are sufficiently strong to make sure that the values are upheld throughout the European Union”, said lead MEP Sophie in’t Veld (ALDE, NL), in the debate ahead of the vote. Her legislative initiative was passed by 505 votes to 171, with 39 abstentions.The new EU mechanism should ensure that all EU member states respect the values enshrined in the EU treaties and set clear, evidence-based and non-political criteria for assessing their records on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF) in a systematic way and on an equal footing, says the resolution text.Parliament’s proposal for an EU mechanism on DRF aims to incorporate existing DRF tools in a single instrument and ensure that they are used to the full. It also aims to bridge the apparent gap between DRF monitoring in EU candidate countries and the lack of effective tools vis-à-vis those that are already EU member states. Finally, it provides for regular DRF debates in the EU institutions and national parliaments.Parliament asks the Commission to present a proposal by September 2017 for a Union Pact for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights in the form of an inter-institutional agreement aligning and complementing existing mechanisms. The Commission will have to give a reasoned reply to Parliament’s request.

On Wednesday evening, the European Parliament will vote on proposals for future electoral reforms to enhance the democratic nature of the European elections. Among these measures we find:
– The possibility for all EU citizens living abroad to vote in European elections.
– The increase of electronic, online ad postal voting.
– The increase of gender balance in voting lists.
– The lowering of the voting age to 16.
– The nomination of lead candidates to preside the European Commission.

The European Parliament asks the European Commission to assess the situation in Hungary and to establish an EU mechanism to monitor democracy, the rule of law and human rights annually across the EU, in a resolution voted on Wednesday. Reinstating the death penalty in Hungary would breach the EU Treaties and Charter of fundamental rights, and the wording of the Hungarian government’s public consultation on migration is “highly misleading, biased and unbalanced”, it says.In the resolution wrapping up the 19 May plenary debate with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, MEPs condemn Mr Orbán’s repeated statements on the possibility of reinstating the death penalty in Hungary and stress the duty of prime ministers to “lead by example”.The death penalty is “incompatible with the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights on which the union is founded”, they stress, adding that any member state reintroducing the death penalty would be “in violation of the Treaties and of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights”. They note that a serious breach by a member state would trigger the EU Treaty Article 7 procedure, which could lead to the withdrawal of its voting rights in the Council.MEPs also denounce the Hungarian government’s public consultation on migration. Although “public consultation can be an important and valuable tool for governments to develop policies”, “the content and the language used in this particular consultation is “highly misleading, biased, and unbalanced; establishing a biased and direct link between migratory phenomena and security threats”, they say.They call on the Commission to “immediately initiate an in-depth monitoring process on the situation of democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary and to report back on this matter to the European Parliament and Council before September 2015”.The Commission is also asked to present a proposal to establish an EU mechanism on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights, as a tool for ensuring compliance with and enforcement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaties as signed by all member states, MEPs say. They also instruct Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to help elaborate this proposal by drafting a non-binding resolution to be voted by Parliament as a whole by the end of this year.The resolution was passed by 362 votes to 247, with 88 abstentions.

New York The Columbia Law School Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic has urged the European Court of Human Rights to recognize and respond to intersectional discrimination, a form of discrimination based on an individual’s combination of characteristics, such as race and sex together, rather than on a single trait. The clinic submitted to the court a “third-party intervention,” a legal document similar to an amicus brief, in partnership with the Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE) Centre.The police forbade her, but not white women in the vicinity, from standing on the street, according to a press release from Women’s Link Worldwide, a women’s rights organization that helped Solomon initially pursue her case in Spain. When multiple Spanish courts dismissed her case, Solomon brought her case before the ECHR. Her plight highlights the discrimination that can occur at the intersections of race, sex, and social status, clinic students said. The intervention shows that intersectional discrimination is a recognized form of discrimination within Europe and also highlights American and Canadian cases in which the courts have identified and responded to such discrimination. “We hope our intervention will help prevent the injustices likely to result when courts use a single-ground approach to analyze a case that involves discrimination on multiple grounds,” noted Erin Meyer ’11.Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic addresses cutting-edge issues in sexuality and gender law through litigation, legislation, public policy analysis and other forms of advocacy. Under the guidance of Professor Suzanne Goldberg, clinic students work on a wide range of projects, from constitutional litigation to legislative advocacy to immigration cases, to serve both individual and organizational clients in cases involving issues of sexuality and gender law: http://www.law.columbia.edu/sexuality-gender-law-clinic.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor made her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee and moved another step closer to taking a seat on the United States Supreme Court. In case you missed it, watch the video of her opening statement here: As President, there are few responsibilities more serious or consequential than the naming of a Supreme Court Justice, so I want to take this opportunity to tell you about the qualifications and character that informed my decision to nominate Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor’s brilliant legal mind is complemented by the practical lessons that can only be learned by applying the law to real world situations. n the coming days, the hearings will cover an incredible body of work from a judge who has more experience on the federal bench than any incoming Supreme Court Justice in the last 100 years. Judge Sotomayor’s professional background spans our judicial system — from her time as a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, to her work as a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And then there is Judge Sotomayor’s incredible personal story. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx — her parents coming to New York from Puerto Rico during the Second World War. At the age of nine, she lost her father, and her mother worked six days a week just to put food on the table. It takes a certain resilience and determination to rise up out of such circumstances, focus, work hard and achieve the American dream. This character shined through in yesterday’s opening statement: Watch the video. In Judge Sotomayor, our nation will have a Justice who will never forget her humble beginnings, will always apply the rule of law, and will be a protector of the Constitution that made her American dream and the dreams of millions of others possible. As she said so clearly yesterday, Judge Sotomayor’s decisions on the bench “have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.” In anticipation of today’s first round of questioning, I hope you’ll share this email widely, because Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation is something that affects every American. It’s important for these hearings to be about Judge Sotomayor’s own record and her capacity for the job — not any political back and forth that some in Washington may use to distract you. What members of the Judiciary Committee, and the American people, will see today is a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into breaking from the rule of law. (Barack Obama)